Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cemu

@SirCmpwn and TheJoebro64: I personally think mentioning Cemu is warranted, but we have a talk page and easily searched archives. Cemu is mentioned twice in the archives, where Czar protested the rolling of a Legacy section into Reception and provided sourcing (This wasn't about Cemu itself, but the sections being merged). The second is an IP who makes an argument for removal, but got no replies.

The sentence was present during the GA review and that is good enough for me personally as far as establishing a general status quo that it should be there. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate my edits being removed because you "thought" there was a talk discussion about it. Someone proposed removal and no one objected or supported it - hardly a discussion. There's no existing consensus which demands a new consensus, so I removed it per WP:BOLD. The notability of CEmu is trivial next to the notability of the article as a whole, and even so - the link to BotW is flimsy given that CEmu is a general purpose emulator. It's not an official platform, and has had next to no impact on the sales of, legacy of, or conversation around BotW. The CEmu article might want to mention BotW, but not the other way around, CEmu fanboys on Wikipedia notwithstanding. SirCmpwn (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• If you're going to quote WP:BOLD, you need to remember the rest of WP:BRD. Whether he did so appropriately or with the right wording is irrelevant to the fact that you boldly edited, it was reverted, so now it's discussion time. I pinged and started this to try to avoid further edit warring, so discussion time it is. :) I believe the one single sentence we have, hardly indepth coverage, of Cemu is appropriate giving the amount of secondary reliable sourcing that exists about the Cemu support of BotW specifically. -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Okay, fair enough. I think that the existence of those sources doesn't really justify CEmu's inclusion in this article any more than the availability of sources documenting that the FOSDEM conference takes place in Brussels merits its mention in the Belgium article. SirCmpwn (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• My stance remains the same - I don’t think it needs a dedicated section or paragraph or anything, but I see no issue with a passing sentence or two, which appears to still be the case here... Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also agree. It was only a single sentence that we already garnered consensus for, or at least I thought. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2019

Changing the genre of the game from Action-Adventure to Action Role-Playing as the game does contain numerous RPG elements within it. 173.19.4.203 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Continuity change

At the beginning of the article, as well as in the Story section, it states that the game is set at the end of the series timeline. This is outdated, as since then, the continuity of this game has changed to being outside of the series timeline, according to the Japanese Zelda website.
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/zelda/history/index.html
Aonuma himself since stated that he doesn't like how the timeline influences fans' expectations, and that it was originally only meant to be seen by developers to be used as a rough outline. As a result, Breath of the Wild was developed to be its own story with no definitive timeline placement so that players could imagine the rest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4fLIT9txVc
I was just wondering if "set at the end of the series' timeline" could be replaced with "set outside of the series' timeline, with no definitive placement", or something along those lines, to be more accurate with the game's current state of affairs. 2601:199:880:2435:E5AC:78EB:7ED:8F28 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RDR2

@TheJoebro64: I don't see how generalizing the statement is WP:SYNTH or "going beyond what the source says", which is reserved for adding to statements, not taking away from. Anyway, I'm just going to change the claim to reflect what was actually stated in the source. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is that you're adding to the statement by saying it was inspired by "games such as..." Red Dead Redemption 2 is the only game they mention, so it's not an accurate representation of the source. JOEBRO64 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we just reword it to some capacity of saying it was “an inspiration” without really alluding to whether or not it was the only inspiration or if there were others? There’s gotta be ways to word it that addresses both of your concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to say. This article should simply call it an inspiration, not the inspiration, which implies it has no others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not the way you worded it. JOEBRO64 17:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Then why revert back to something you admit wasn't ideal instead of fixing it? Anyway, the last edit should hopefully be acceptable, yes? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Because that's not how you were coming across. You tried to word it as if it was multiple games, but the source only says one. You could have just changed it to "an inspiration" as Serge mentioned above, but that's not what you did. It's as simple as that. JOEBRO64 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Fallen hero timeline?

Why isn't that phrase in this article? Breath of the Wild isn't tied to any particular Zelda timeline. It certainly isn't in the Adult Link timeline, because in that timeline, the Hyruleans are in New Hyrule and never return to the old Hyrule. Breath of the Wild may be child timeline, but many say that Breath of the Wild takes place in the fallen hero timeline, which is most likely. Ganondorf is Ganon the demonic boar in the fallen hero timeline and Ganondorf the Gerudo in the other two timelines. Why might BOTW be in the child timeline? Because it's realistically styled like Twilight Princess which is also in the child timeline, while games in the fallen hero timeline are 2D, while games in the Adult Link timeline being cel cartoons with Link and Zelda looking like children. However, Breath of the Wild may be different from the other games in the fallen hero timeline by being a realistically styled game taking place after all the 2D games in the timeline. WorldQuestioneer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, The Legend of Zelda timeline is really complicated. I'm gonna leave it to all the experts here. --Enjoyer of World (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Does a single reliable source use the term? I don’t think they do, and that’s why it’s not used. Wikipedia isn’t the place for fan theories or speculation. That violates our policy on original research. I think all Nintendo has officially said on it was that it occurs outside of any other timelines. (Or however they phrased a similar sentiment.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo said, they will not place it in any timeline, since it so far in the future that it doesn't matter... there is nothing else to said, wikipedia is not a place for speculations 88.69.0.179 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sequel's article

Is there any draft for the sequel to Breath of the Wild? I want to see it. Enjoyer of World^💬 02:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not aware of one existing. I don’t even know what would be in it if it did exist. We know virtually nothing about it. Outside of a sentence mentioning the initial trailer reveals existence, there’s nothing to say yet. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: well, there is a draft for The Elder Scrolls VI. We know less of it than Breath of the Wild's sequel. But do you want to help expand it anyway? I have added several things there. Enjoyer of World^💬 10:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, feel free to start a draft, there’s no reason you can’t, Im just saying I think you’ll be stuck pretty quickly because there’s nothing to say. And if there’s not even a title yet, there’s no guarantee that editors are even going to see your draft when it comes time to make the article someday. (If you create a Breath of the Wild 2 draft today, editors may not see it if the game is announced as Breath of the Triforce or something in January 2022. They may just jump right in from scratch at it’s real name.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of "sequel" and "story sequel"

Starting this section since there's a lack of consensus on what to refer to Age of Calamity as and how to refer to the Breath of the Wild sequel.

Any thoughts on what should be stated regarding these two subjects, and/or other subjects of relation?

BWellsOdyssey (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Words like "sequel" and "prequel" are widely understood, but have particular implications we need to be careful around.

Generally speaking, a sequel is the next main instalment in a series. But what I think us nerds tend to forget is that a prequel is a type of sequel, just with a story set earlier. So The Phantom Menace is a prequel to A New Hope, but Terminator is not a prequel to Terminator 2.

For that reason, I think we should avoid calling Age of Calamity a prequel to Breath of the Wild, since it suggests it is a sequel (ie the next main instalment in the Legend of Zelda series). In actuality, Age of Calamity is part of a spin-off series, and the sequel to a different game, Hyrule Warriors.

It would be technically correct to say that Age of Calamity is a "story prequel", but IMO that doesn't help anything. I mean, all prequels are story prequels. And "story prequel" is not a term that is really used by anyone or has a clear, distinct meaning. So I'm in favour of spelling out the relationship between the games in prose, as we currently do: Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, a sequel to Hyrule Warriors (2014) with a story set before Breath of the Wild, is scheduled for release in 2020.

(Alternatively, we could drop the "sequel" part there - maybe it's irrelevant for the BotW lead - and write: Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, a spinoff hack-and-slash game set before Breath of the Wild, is scheduled for release in 2020. Just a thought.)

In my view, the relationship between all three games (BotW, BotW2 and AoC) was clear in this revision. We are literally telling readers that Hyrule Warriors 2 is another game (ie not the sequel). That isn't jargon. And telling readers that the sequel to Breath of the Wild is "tentatively known as Breath of the Wild 2" surely qualifies for inclusion in the Principle of Some Astonishment. Popcornfud (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, it's simple, really. The next game in the series does not automatically make that game a "sequel" if it doesn't continue the story, it's simply called an "instalment" (GTA V is not a sequel to IV). Meanwhile a prequel is a work that tells the story set before the related previous work, and it doesn't have to be part of the main entry of the series (see Rogue One). Age of Calamity is a prequel to Breath of the Wild, plain, simple and true. The prequel is made for the main purpose of showing the Great Calamity, not for the purpose of making a Warriors game. So Age of Calamity is "an installment of Hyrule Warriors and is a narrative prequel to Breath of the Wild". Simple and correct. Enjoyer of World^💬 02:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Despite the reverts, I’m really not that picky. It’s simple. We need to note the story connections between BOTW and AoC. And the gameplay connection between BOTW and BOTW2. Yes, I believe some of the revisions have not been improvements. But all I really require is that we mention these two points - otherwise, there will be an endless supply of arguments by passerby editors related to "sequel/prequel/canonicity" type nonsense that doesn’t really matter from the Wikipedia perspective. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is that we omit mention of 2014 Hyrule Warriors from this article altogether. Because Age of Calamity is mentioned here because of its story connection to BotW, not because it's a sequel to the 2014 game. We should simply call AoC a prequel in this article , any further detail should go to the Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity article.

TL;DR: the 2014 game is not relevant to be mentioned in the Breath of the Wild article. Enjoyer of World^💬 03:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Enjoyer of World, I do not believe mainstream use would agree with you here: The next game in the series does not automatically make that game a "sequel" if it doesn't continue the story By this logic, Worms 2, Team Fortress 2, Quake 2, Final Fantasy II and GTA2 are not sequels. That runs counter to how they are perceived by most people and, importantly for us, how they are described by sources. And you're going to have a tough time saying anything with a number at the end of its title isn't a sequel.

I think we can avoid mention of the 2014 game if we use my proposed wording above: Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, a spinoff hack-and-slash game set before Breath of the Wild, is scheduled for release in 2020. Popcornfud (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why so complicated? This is BotW's article, we only have to put the emphasis of AoC's connection to BotW. "a spinoff hack-and-slash game set before" is overtly detailed description of a game that's not even the subject of the article. And you ignored my example of GTA V. Enjoyer of World^💬 10:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with just "spinoff game". And I would say GTA V is a sequel, yes, and I think most sources would agree with that. As I said above, you're going to have a tough time saying anything with a number at the end of its title isn't a sequel. Popcornfud (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, they aren't. Even if they are, GTA V and FF2 are written as "entry" and "second installment" respectively. You don't have to label everything as a sequel and making readers falsely assuming that it continues the story. Enjoyer of World^💬 10:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the relevance of this debate to the article as it stands. Popcornfud (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

Just wanted to slightly correct one small part:

"If players fulfill certain conditions (freeing all four Divine Beasts, retrieving the Master Sword, and finding all memories), they unlock a secret ending in which Zelda realizes that Hyrule must be rebuilt and that she and Link must begin the process themselves."

This is a common misconception, however, the *only* criteria for the secret ending is that the player has found the 12 memories in the photographs plus the final "secret" memory from Impa. Freeing any Divine Beasts, having the Master Sword (or its associated memory), or even the champion-related memories that you get during the Divine Beast questlines - none of these are part of the criteria to unlock the secret ending.

I would change this line to say:

"If players fulfill certain conditions (finding all 12 memories from the photographs during the "Captured Memories" main quest, plus the final "secret" memory after visiting Impa once this is complete), they unlock a secret ending in which Zelda realizes that Hyrule must be rebuilt and that she and Link must begin the process themselves." UncleFlameo (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

According to this, "The only requirement for getting the true end is to recover all 18 missing memories. This means you need to save all four divine beasts, obtain the Master Sword and locate all the missing memories." Enjoyer of World^💬 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That article was written on release day when the conditions for the true ending were still poorly understood and certain things were assumed to be true. Unfortunately this isn't really the kind of thing that we can easily point to some kind of authority or "source" for. I want to say "just go play the game and try it if you don't believe me" but I realise that could be time consuming. There are a few discussions like this one on reddit out there which might be the best source we have, hopefully it will suffice. UncleFlameo (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

UncleFlameo, well unfortunately Wikipedia only rely on reliable sources to build its articles, and Reddit discussions are not reliable source. I tried to find sources that support your claim but they appear conflicting. Your claim could be supported by the primary source (the game itself), though I'm not sure. But if you do find a strong secondary source, it will be much appreciated. Enjoyer of World^💬 08:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So I ended up doing a playthrough of BotW over the weekend where I essentially just bee-lined it straight for the photo memories without doing much else. I recorded the entire thing and just finished uploading it to youtube - Here's a link to the playlist with all parts / Link to the final part only. My successful Ganon kill starts at around the 50 minute mark (in part 4) and I go through my inventory and quest/memories list before entering the Sanctum - note that I'm missing the champion memories as I never visited any of the towns where the divine beast quests start, and also the Master Sword memory as I never obtained the sword. Credits end at 1:28:45. UncleFlameo (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I have found a source for you. UncleFlameo, I hope you join us and contribute more often to the wiki. One more edit and you'll be able to edit the article! But note that Wp:Original research is not permitted. Regards, Enjoyer of World^💬 05:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"BOTW" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BOTW. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 5#BOTW until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

Please add a quest guide Ladelm (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a game guide, that wouldn't be appropriate. Volteer1 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

New sequel?

I might be wrong here, but since when has an direct sequel been announced offically by Nintendo? Because Age of Calamity is the only one I know of.TTTTRZON (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's explained and sourced in the Sequel section. Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Since 2019. enjoyer|talk 23:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@SWinxy: Regarding the split recommendation, the split has already been drafted here: Draft:The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2. -2pou (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah cool. Thanks! :) SWinxy (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Metacritic award source

Please discuss here instead of the continued edit warring. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted on the basis of it not being an award or another type of hand-picked honor. It's basically a glorified sorted list of Metacritic ratings from 2010-2019. I'm pretty sure we discussed something similar back in 2017 either here or on WT:NFL. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

GUYS-- it's time

Mipha and Urbosa have their own pages. Daruk and, especially, Revali, do not. It's time for them to be given their own pages. Thanks! 23.28.31.25 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, articles are created because they meet our notability standards, not just because other character articles exist. And the Mipha/Urbosa ones are pretty freshly made so they haven't necessarily endured any particular scrutiny yet either... Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"The Legend of Zelda: Breath of Evil" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Legend of Zelda: Breath of Evil. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#The Legend of Zelda: Breath of Evil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. enjoyer -- talk 02:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, well... the sequel's name hasn't been officially announced, so if anything related to BotW 2 is going to happen (ie redirects), then do it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Breath_of_the_Wild_sequel. Thanks! 23.28.31.25 (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This was resolved (and deleted) months ago. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Is hyrule destroyed or not at the start?

I made the edit saying that the main point of the game is to save zelda insted of saving hyrule because at the start of the game hyrule has already fallen to ganon who is being held back by zelda. Husama.kgudvdid (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, "destroyed" sometimes refers more to "completely gone", which isn't really the case. I don't know why you keep trying to force it in when we already have good wording without any issues like this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that the point is to save Zelda and not Hyrule the point is to save both Zelda and Hyrule, but before Link sleeps for those 100 years he loses that fight and Zelda saves him.(and puts him to sleep for 100 years) but Zelda is fighting Ganon buying link some time to get to the castle because the lore behind it is you need the reincarnation of the goddess hylia and the sword that seals darkness away to defeat Ganon so mostly we are saving hyrule not Zelda. Zelda just needs link’s help to seal Ganon away. BoxerBoyEight (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Remove the sentence "Silent princesses, a once-endangered type of flower that was a favorite of Zelda's, bloom across the land" from "Plot". There is no source for this claim and it seems out of place 81.178.75.46 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

100% attach rate

I've changed this line:

'Breath of the Wild' sold more than one million copies in the US that month, 925,000 of which were for Switch – a 100% attach rate.

to this:

Breath of the Wild sold more than one million copies in the US that month—925,000 of which were for Switch, outselling the Switch itself.

This is because the immediately linked articles say that the Switch copy of BotW sold more units than Switch consoles themselves (in the United States). So, if anything, there is an attach rate of more than 100%.

These edits were removed, so I wanna ask you to read the immediately linked articles that the article presently uses to (poorly) back up the claim of a 100% attach rate:

The article from the Verge doesn't say anything about the attach rate at all

The article from Shack News (a literally who source btw) actually suggests that the attach rate was less than 100%

The article from Kotaku indeed says that more copies of BotW on Switch were sold in the launch window than Switch consoles themselves (in the United States)

The article from the Reno Gazette Journal says in the very title that the attach rate exceeds 100%, and then elaborates in the article itself the same information as Kotaku — 19,000 more copies of the Switch game were sold than Switch consoles

Do you folks understand that the sources do not say that there was a 100% attach rate? Never mind how a 100% attach rate makes NO sense: "Oh yeah, the game and Switches both sold EXACTLY x amount of copies to the digit". 675930s (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Is that all your hang up is? All you have to do is add the word "over" in front of the "100% attach rate" and the two version are effectively the same. I don't understand your aversion to the term "attach rate". Whether they directly use the term or not, it's objectively the same concept. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It helps to elaborate the actual relationship ie the attach rate between BotW and what exactly 675930s (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not when you remove the term "attach rate" altogether it doesn't. Maybe a hybrid approach would work best - keeping the content of both versions. I don't object to what you've added, only what you keep removing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Add info plz

Informing people here cuz I don't know which section to put it in. Please use this somewhere in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I added it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. This game is is massive in its scope and importance to the industry. There's so much to cover. Junk like this is...not important. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I figured being covered by IGN and Polygon made it worth including, but maybe it's a scope thing. I will admit it did not warrant a paragraph. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Is that better? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's...better...but still reads more like a meme or something from The Onion or something... Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, here is another source on it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying sources aren't reporting on it, I'm just saying it's a negligible aspect of the game. The game isn't even about dogs. It'd be one thing if reviewers were saying that the horseback segments didn't control well or something, but NPC dogs walking around in the background have no role whatsoever in the game. Sourcing is required for inclusion, but we're also not compelled to add every single thing we can source either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You make good points, but considering that several sources reported on this, and a lot of fans had an opinion on this, I feel it warrants a short mention in the Reception section. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we're at a stalemate then. I've neutrally requested further input from WT:VG. Also, hadn't even checked it, since I don't think the sourcing is the issue here but the relevance, but Dexerto is not a reliable source. Quite the opposite, they thrive on crufty content like this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because something is covered in reliable sources doesn't make it notable. I'm reminded of the 'UR MR GAY' meme in SMG or the size of Mario's rump on the SMB movie poster, both covered in many reliable sources, but ultimately deemed not notable for inclusion in their respective articles. Like Serge said, dogs are such a miniscule feature of the game. It would be more notable if Nintendo responded or otherwise acknowledged the "criticism." ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Would having an interview in the topic not be considered acknowledging the criticism? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, sourcing is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a guarantee for inclusion. Editorial discretion can still rule that things are not worth mentioning. WP:UNDUE touches on the sentiment too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I will admit, WP:UNDUE could be a slight concern, but the number of sources, combined with there only being a single sentence in the article currently, goes around that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Additionally, some fans voiced their concerns with being unable to pet the dogs." Would this be better? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it sounds like a random non-sequitur, considering dogs aren't discussed at any point in the article leading up to this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Additionally, some fans voiced their concerns with being unable to pet the dogs that appear as NPCs in the game. Sound better now? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that still doesn't address the fact that dogs aren't mentioned anywhere prior to that comment. And I have no idea how to fix that, as there's zero viable ways of including that in the gameplay section or something. It also raises the obvious question of "why are they making it sound like it's problematic to not pet dogs". Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This could fit over at Can You Pet the Dog? Masem (t) 20:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would fit there, as that article is on a Twitter account. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's almost certainly the reason for this silly question ever being asked in the first place though, and it could be mentioned in the Impact section pretty easily if you can make that connection. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion, let's wait and see if BotW2 adds dog petting and then see if multiple RSes comment on the fan reaction having an impact. I think that'd be my floor for giving the thumbs up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to use the FYI section on Template:WPVG announcements to get more input? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I already notified WT:VG, so I don't think that really adds any additional reach... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source on potential dog-petting in Tears of the Kingdom. Does that help? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This info should almost certainly be mentioned at Can You Pet the Dog? and not here (if mentioned at all). It doesn't really add anything to the game or its development process for the lay person. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If we're getting really theoretical, I can see potential for an Animals in video games article that could integrate the whole thing in a more thorough manner than a mere article about a Twitter account run by one person. At a base level, it's more than a meme, it's part of a general discourse about whether animals in games should be background props or interactive NPCs in their own right. There are reliable sources on the topic. However, it would be bigger in scope and probably have to include anthropomorphic animals as well as standard ones, a la Star Fox. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is more related to the impact of Can You Pet the Dog?, and I also agree there's a potential for "Animals in video games" (or, maybe Depictions of animals in video games as that's even more specific). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this discussion...this is ridiculous. This is such a tiny part of a huge game, and doesn't merit inclusion. The most I can imagine is a tiny little mention among the general interaction mechanics, at best. As a compromise, I think some article on how animals and animal interaction has evolved in video games might actually be feasible. I've noticed quite a few reputable sites covering it in a non-clickbaity way over the years. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This concept is not even relevent to the game Blitzfan51 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:FANCRUFT. And this is coming from a HUGE Zelda fan. Blitzfan51 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I love the idea of an Animals in video games article. This is very much a subject very dear to people's hearts, but an extremely minor aspect to the expansive world of Breath of the Wild and its sequel. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no need to include this trival detail. There are development information far more important than petting a dog already missing in the article. MilkyDefer 05:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I created the Animals in video games article, though I still haven't included the BOTW article, since I feel it is too trivial. Ironically, however, it appears that dogs are in fact "pettable". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Matter concerning the intro

I don’t think the intro should include “developed by Nintendo EPD”. Nintendo EPD does not exist as a company, it is a mere in-name only division of Nintendo which develops games for the company. Even in-name only divisions which did not exist as a company, like Team Ico, has its games’ articles list their publisher in the intro. If removing “Nintendo EPD” is unacceptable, shouldn’t at least adding “published by Nintendo” be reasonable? Also sorry for the frequent reverts, I will not revert until a consensus has been reached. STB (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO says we should be summarizing all the information there. I personally think just going with "is a game by Nintendo" is ideal, but seems like WP:VG disagrees. We can also denote the exact division in the infobox or even later in the lead if it has to belong. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, stating “developed and published by Nintendo” is enough for the situation, but seems like the other editor involved insists that it’s redundant to state it for being a Nintendo game. STB (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The intro is fine to begin with—if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The first sentence is the boilerplate information, and I'd say the division of Nintendo that created it for Nintendo platforms is said boilerplate information. "Nintendo EPD doesn't exist" is a ridiculous, categorically false statement and really makes it feel like you're grasping at straws here. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I also think having Nintendo EPD is a good idea. Toa Nidhiki05 21:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BROKE could apply to whoever added EPD to the lead in the first place, as it didn't used to be there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, MobyGames mentions Nintendo EPD as the game's primary developer (https://www.mobygames.com/game/84595/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild/). Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mobygames is also unreliable per WP:USERG though. -- ferret (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The name “Nintendo EPD” is only used internally, the division is named “Nintendo” in pretty much every source; the division’s identity is not distinct from Nintendo enough to be mentioned in the article itself like Next Level Games and Retro Studios, mentions of the division in the Development section and Infobox is sufficient. STB (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed it again since I still don't see a consensus supporting EPD in the opening sentence. Nobody is arguing if EPD worked on the game, just the need to specifically call out them out there. Looking back on it, it seems that JoeBro is the one who added EPD there in April, so I'm not sure why he tried to claim WP:AINT when it started with him. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

Add "developed and published" before "by Nintendo" for consistency with other Zelda games articles 1.64.193.74 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 22:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Divine Beasts

Should the divine beasts be mentioned in the gameplay section? They seem important enough to be given at least a sentence. 22090912l (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The abilities gained from completing the Divine Beasts should be mentioned, yes. Neocorelight (Talk) 08:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Direct sequel"

This seems to have already been resolved, but since we're on the subject I'm going to dump in some thoughts I have on this term.

TLDR: It's nerd jargon with no coherent meaning, and doesn't help readers.

Consider this example, from an old version of the Final Fantasy X-2 page:

Final Fantasy X-2 is a direct sequel to 2001's Final Fantasy X, the first game in the Final Fantasy series to receive such a follow-up.

This requires the reader to understand a lot of things. What is a "direct" or "indirect" sequel? If Final Fantasy X-2 is a "direct sequel" to Final Fantasy X, was Final Fantasy X not a "direct sequel" to Final Fantasy IX? What makes X-2 a more "direct" sequel than any of the previous Final Fantasy sequels? None of these things are obvious.

What the sentence is getting at is this: Final Fantasy games don't usually continue stories from previous games. That makes Final Fantasy X-2 a "direct sequel". But the uninitiated reader has no way of puzzling that out.

When Final Fantasy X-2 was Wikipedia's article of the day, the sentence was summarized like this:

The game was the first to be a sequel to a previous Final Fantasy game.

Wrong! Final Fantasy II was the first sequel to previous Final Fantasy game. Games don't have to use the same story and characters to be sequels (see Quake and Quake II). Lots of games don't even really have stories or characters in the first place — that doesn't mean they can't have sequels.

The solution? If it's important to explain that a sequel continues the story from a previous game, then write that. If it isn't important, then don't. Popcornfud (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the term in a general sense, I just didn't particularly think it applied to these two titles. I think "direct sequel" is a fine term for something like Trails of Cold Steel and Trails of Cold Steel 2. I just don't think it belongs in these scenarios where its games that "occur in the same world/universe but are largely telling a new story". Doubly so for game's that aren't particularly plot-driven. I do agree that its better to simply write it out as you say though, especially when its a point of contention like this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Only unbreakable weapon?

Should the master sword be considered the only Unbreakable weapon in the game despite the one hit obliterator being in the game? 2600:1006:B326:CFFC:8173:3C8E:805C:3183 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

Reception - Breath of the Wild no longer has the most 100/100 scores on Metacritic - it's sequel took that title : https://www.reddit.com/r/tearsofthekingdom/comments/147yy66/highest_number_of_perfect_scores_on_metacritic/ Kacak908 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reddit is not a reliable source. Someone could probably go to the review pages on Metacritic and count the reviews (as this redditor you're quoting claimed to have done), but I have doubts about whether that would satisfy WP:PRIMARY. Liu1126 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"Zelda 19" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zelda 19 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Zelda 19 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)